AZAD Vs. STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment shall decide three Criminal Appeals bearing no. 593/2022, 354/2022 and 367/2022 preferred by the appellants Azad @ Gaurav, Jitender @ Jitu and Bharat Kumar Goswami, respectively to impugn the judgment dtd. 16/3/2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned judgment') passed by the court of Ms. Charu Aggarwal, ASJ Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the convicting court') whereby the appellants along with the accused Kanhaie Jha were convicted for the offence under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and the appellant Bharat Kumar Goswami was acquitted for offence under Sec. 397 IPC after being given the benefit of doubt; and the order on sentence dtd. 4/6/2022 passed by the court of Mr. Dheeraj Mor, ASJ Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the sentencing court') whereby the appellants along with convict Kanhaie Jha @ Kishan were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 IPC and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.00individually for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 IPC and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months. It was further directed to pay Rs.90,000.00 to the complainant as per Sec. 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') towards the loss suffered by him and remaining Rs.10,000.00 was ordered to be paid to the State towards the expenses incurred in the prosecution of the case. Fine was not paid.

(2.) Sec. 391 IPC defines dacoity. It reads as under:-

(3.) The relevant facts as mentioned in the impugned judgment are reproduced as under:-